Allowed

Haseena v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Aug 2020Bail Appl./3304/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge Anticipatory Bail Court allowed an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C in a cheating case involving an amount of Rs. 75 lakhs. The court found custodial interrogation unnecessary and noted the maximum punishment was seven years.

What did the court decide?

The application was allowed. The applicant was directed to surrender within two weeks. In case of arrest, bail was granted on ₹1,00,000 bond with conditions.

Haseena Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.3304 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 515/2020 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOZHIKODE

¶7

CRIME NO.823/2019 OF Medical College Police Station , Kozhikode

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:

¶9

HASEENA W/O. MUHAMMED PALLIYIL, PALLIYIL HOUSE, KADAVATHOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 676

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.VINODKUMAR CHAMBALON SMT.BINDUMOL JOSEPH SRI.B.S.SYAMANTHAK SHRI.SRIVIDYA K

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031

¶13

2 ADDL.R2 RAMESAN P S/O. LATE RARUKUTTY, PRASANTHI, PALAKOTTUMETHAL PARAMBU, KUTHIRAVATTOM P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT673016, NOW RESIDING AT RAGAM HOUSE, KOMMERI P.O, NEAR KOMMERI CO-OPERATIVE BANK, POOVATHINGAL ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673007. IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 15.06.2020 IN CRL.M.A. NO 1/2020

¶14

R2 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MATHEW R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN R2 BY ADV. SHRI.PRAVEEN S. R2 BY ADV. SRI.DIPU JAMES R2 BY ADV. SHRI.MATHEW K.T. R2 BY ADV. SHRI.GEORGE K.V. SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN SR PP

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Bail Appl..No.3304 OF 2020

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Dated this the 13th day of August 2020

¶20

This is an application filed under Section 438

¶21

of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail.

¶22

The applicant is the 2nd accused in Crime No.823/2019 of Kozhikode Medical College Police Station, for having allegedly committed offence punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. The first accused is her husband who is allegedly conducting a catering business in the UAE.

¶23

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the applicant's husband promised to make the defacto complainant a partner in his catering business at UAE, and dishonestly induced him to deliver a sum

¶24

of Rs.75 lakhs for that purpose. The de facto

¶25

complainant paid the said amount to the applicant, believing that a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- would be paid as profit per month from out of the said

¶26

Bail Appl..No.3304 OF 2020

¶27

¶28

business to him.

¶29

The transaction took place in India. Rs.75

¶30

lakhs was not paid in a lump sum but in several instalments to the applicant as directed by the first accused. There is absolutely no documentary evidence to prove that payment. The defacto complainant would content that there are witnesses who have seen the alleged transaction and would testify to that effect. It is also stated that the applicant's husband had subsequently issued a cheque for Rs.75 lakhs in favour of the defacto complainant towards the amount due when he could not induct the de facto complainant into the

¶31

business. The cheque was presented and got

¶32

bounced. In consequence of which a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act has been preferred

¶33

against the applicant's husband and it is

¶34

allegedly pending.

¶35

The applicant states that the allegations

¶36

Bail Appl..No.3304 OF 2020

¶37

are false and that even going by the prosecution

¶38

story, it is unbelievable. She is willing to co-

¶39

operate with the investigation. She is a

¶40

pardanashin lady and the allegation that she had received the amount from the applicant is hard to believe. Under the circumstances, she requests for pre-arrest bail.

¶41

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶42

applicant and the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶43

The entire transaction of Rs.75 lakhs is oral without a scintilla of documentary evidence to prove. However, the defacto complainant has a cheque allegedly issued by the husband of the applicant towards discharge of the debt or liability. Even if the cheque is to be believed it can only lead to the conclusion that there was

¶44

some transaction between the defacto complainant

¶45

Bail Appl..No.3304 OF 2020

¶46

¶47

and the applicant's husband and in consequence of that, a cheque is issued. It is also contended by the applicant that the de facto complainant was an employee of her husband in UAE and that there were certain transactions between them. But the story regarding the offer to make him a partner was never true. The applicant is not likely to

¶48

abscond. She is willing to co-operate with the investigation.

¶49

Under the circumstances, I find that the

¶50

custodial interrogation of the applicant is totally unnecessary. The application for anticipatory bail is to be allowed also in view of

¶51

the Full Bench decision of this Court in WPC No.9400/2020 since the maximum punishment that can be awarded for the offence alleged in this case is only up to seven years of imprisonment.

¶52

In the result, the application is allowed,

¶53

and the applicant is directed to surrender before

¶54

Bail Appl..No.3304 OF 2020

¶55

¶56

the investigating officer within two weeks. In the event of her being arrested, she shall be released

¶57

on bail on execution of bond for Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and on the following conditions;

¶58

1.She shall surrender her passport before the

¶59

investigating officer and the same shall be produced before the jurisdictional court and she shall not go abroad without seeking the permission of the jurisdictional court.

¶60

2.She shall not tamper with evidence, influence

¶61

or intimidate witnesses.

¶62

3.She shall appear before the investigating

¶63

officer as and when called for.

¶64

4.She shall not get involved in similar

¶65

offences during the bail period.

¶66

In the event of violating the bail conditions,

¶67

Bail Appl..No.3304 OF 2020

¶68

the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail before the jurisdictional court.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

spk

Haseena v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haseena v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muhammed Ali Vs Mr. Basudev Mandal

Franco Vs State of Kerala

Stanly Paul Vs Public Prosecutor

Shreemathi Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Sunitha Kumari Vs State of Kerala

Sunitha Kumari, Vs State of Kerala